Same-sex marriage/Con
Arguments against same-sex marriage The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a male and female can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature. How we define a word is absolutely important in this debate of same sex marriage. To start, Hetero is the greek word for "other" used as a prefix in the word heterosexual. Homo is the greek word for "same" and is used as a prefix in the word homosexual. First, let's stop using other languages to say what needs to be said. Let's be politically correct. People with the same gender want to be contractually bound in the same way that two people of opposite sex are joined together under the marriage contract. Why? For the sake of benefits?! Taxes, retirement, sex and any other perks?! If this is the case then single adults should have the right to these perks as well. That's where morality comes in. Out of all the benefits of marriage, sex is the ultimate benefit. Sex is the most pleasurable human experiences. Consequently as with anything that is so valuable, it must be protected from abuse. The abuse of sex is destructive to humanity from a civilized point of view. Let it be said that no one can protect sex better than the Law. If the Law relinquishes its protection from sex, the world is in for a fatal shock. It is the responsibility of Law to protect that which cannot protect itself. For example, children need to be protected because they cannot protect themselves. If parents don't protect their child than that child now becomes an infant of the Law, child of the state. In other words sex is a child of the Law. To justify the use (abuse) of sex, most same sex partners are trying to get the Law to turn it's face from the nature of this delimma. The question needs to be asked, why are these benefits given to a man and a woman under a contract by consent (married) and not to any other type of contract. The truth is that Law must protect itself. A man and a woman joined together by contract are the closest representatives of Law simply because they offer two of the most important perspectives from a coinciding point of view... a male and female point of view. For example, in the case of race, it is easy for people of the same race to be bias, hence slavery and the holocaust. Another example would be women's liberation... this was needed due to the fact that influential men ruled the world. The point is that two men will most likely not have the best interest of sex in mind but their best interest in mind. It is not in their nature to do so. They will not provide checks and balances in a sexual relationship. The same with two women. Same sex marriage is one the most unnatural acts on the face of this earth. When sex loses its innocence and purity, it becomes a tool of destruction. Same sex marriage is just the beginning step of destruction. What if sex was becomes lawless? Darwin's law of natural selection dictates that only sexually reproductive specie can survive, thus it's natural that a sexually reproductive species like the human race would be unlikely to evolve a purely non-reproductive life style. *Please rename this section. It only briefly mentions Darwin's theory and it does not draw on any scientific evidence. In summary, this is not a scientific argument, but a moral and political one. --Waldsen 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Evidence against natural homosexuality While much has been touted about findings that homosexuality is natural, there are studies that indicate different findings, such as the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Dr. Paul Cameron, Chariman of the Family Research Institute, maintains it is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :Dr. Cameron received his PhD in psychology in 1966, but has since been ejected from the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association after he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. Counterpoint Slippery slope When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. Counterpoint Religious imperative Aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion First and foremost, all religion aside, secular law should always be aligned with the majority, moral codes or no moral codes. This is both the purpose and spirit of democracy. Secondly, (the vast majority of, if not all) gay marriage supporters are not in any way suggesting people cannot live whatever lifestyle(s) they choose. They are merely stating that such behavior cannot and should not be condoned in what is, like it or not, a religious institution. Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that homosexuals are entitled to protections by a religious institution, and (more often than not) claiming that anything otherwise would be intolerant. However, this is a weak argument at best and a hypocritical one at worst. Gays wishing a legally-binding institution are free to pursue one--just leave ours alone. Counterpoint Rebuttals Counterpoint to religious imperative Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples which are denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but its current reality is much broader. Furthermore, proper separation of church and state would preclude the aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion, or any religion for that matter, as enforcing the moral code of one religion violates individuals' rights to choose their own religion (or to choose none). In this way, the religious imperative is an unconstitutional argument for prohibition of same-sex marriage. Counterpoint to slippery slope argument Conservative opponents of homosexual marriages often make what is known as the slippery slope argument. They argue that if we allow gay marriages, then that is simply the first step towards allowing polygamy, adult-child sex, bestiality, and other sorts of unconventional sexual behaviors. This argument is flawed in many ways. First of all, same sex marriage is intrinsically different in nature from pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality; polygamy is a choice and not a condition (and multiparty marriages would be challenging to write into law), adult-child sex involves non adults and is a form of abuse (considered to be non-consensual), and bestiality is not a union between two consenting parties. These distinctions can be, and regularly are, clearly made between what rights we ought to grant to two consenting (human) adults, and what rights we ought to grant to minors or animals; opening marriage to homosexuals does not expose the institution to a slippery slope any more than opening voting to women or racial minorities threatened democracy. In addition, the slippery slope argument could go the other way: if we let the government decide who we can marry based on sexual orientation, then what is to stop them from making income level or race qualifications for marriage? Conversely, the slippery slope argument presents no top end of the slope: who's to say we haven't already started down the slope with, say, no-fault divorce (or even divorce at all)? Or even with allowing marriage that's uncondoned by the bride's or groom's family? Or allowing married couples to have sex for pleasure, not just procreation? All of these are uncontroversial now, but at one time could have been argued against using the same slippery slope argument. Counterpoint to natural order argument Evidence for homesexuality in other species Many species of animals, including mammals other than humans, have members that mate with members of their own sex. Some species display homosexual mating for life, the most notable example of which are penguinshttp://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp. As high as 15% of male penguins mate for life with another male penguin. These "gay" couples "adopt" and raise the abandoned eggs of other penguins. It seems, then, that nature needs homosexuality. The biological role of homosexuality Reproduction is not the sole biological role of sex in humans. If reproduction was the the only role of sex, we would only have sex 2 times in our life (on average). No other species of mammal spends as much time performing sex as humans, both in frequency and duration of the act. Why would nature have designed sex to be so inefficient? What is the advantage? The answer is that sex has other secondary roles, such as social bonding. Therefore, sex performed for non-reproductory purposes isn't any more "unnatural" than an elephant using its ears for cooling rather than hearing. Natural does not equal moral What is "natural" and how is it even relevant? If by natural you mean that non-human animals do something, then there are many examples of homosexual behavior among animals. Since it occurs in the natural world, then that makes it "natural." Being "natural" or "unnatural" does not make something good or bad. For example, Hemlock and viruses are natural, kidney transplants and scissors are unnatural. Arguing if homosexuality is not “natural” does not seem to prove very much. Attempts to make a moral argument based upon the natural order employ a logical fallacy: the naturalistic fallacy. Attempting to argue that something is morally correct because it's natural would also condone behaviors such as murder, rape, and theft. Nature vs. choice Can a "straight" person choose to be "gay?" No. They can choose to perform gay acts, but cannot intrincically change to be gay. The opposite is also true - gay people can "act" straight, but inside, they are still gay, as they were born. Arguments against state marriage in general :Related campaign: Campaign To Privatize Marriage Secularization Marriage is sometimes considered a solely religious ritual and thus it should not have any law basis or consequences. Discrimination Such an institution discriminates against single people (and any other people with alternative lifestyles) by giving tax breaks to married people and some additional rights. Personal issue, no need for state involvement The State should not get involved into the people's life especially when it's related to sexual practices and personal choices. So those choices do not entitle anyone to special rights. Counterpoint against personal issue Existing laws sometimes require the state to get involved in personal life. Immigration law limits the number of people who may become permanent residents. This is designed to protect the country's resources against overexploitation by too many immigrants. However, some people should be granted immigration rights based on the personal relationships they've built. Denying a couple to live together is cruel and unfair. That's why we need some form of official proof that people are a couple. A full privatisation of marriage would only work if everything else was privatised, and if unrestricted immigration was allowed. What YOU can do to support marriage Allow democracy to take its course. In the USA, marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman. The voters support that definition by a wide margin. Homosexual "marriage" will be defeated simply by not squelching the voice of the people. Support voter initiatives and reject activist judges. Simply allow the people their freedom to vote and marriage will survive. }}